Does the universe need intelligence to order it?

[Sapiens]

It is atheists, evolutionists, nazi's and communists who don't accept freedom is real and relevant.

Anyone else hearing a broken record that repeats and repeats and repeats and repeats unsupported and unsupportable claims?

That is the usual tactic of the Orwellian cultures that thing repeating a big lie makes it more believable, you know: the Nazis, the Communists, Mohammad Nur Syamsu ...

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The fish is in the sea, was born into the sea (ie; Enlightenment), but he does not KNOW he is in the sea.

So it's a metaphor on Buddha-nature then?

PS What's with the blue text - is that a "mystical" thing?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Anyone else hearing a broken record that repeats and repeats and repeats unsupported and unsupportable claims?

There seems to be a lot of that in this thread.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Anyone else hearing a broken record that repeats and repeats and repeats and repeats unsupported and unsupportable claims?

You are repeating unsopprted assertion to anything you don't like to hear. It is merely authoritarian posturing. The same idea I had about choosing providing predators surprise in attack and prey being unpredictable in escape was also published in an article indipendent of me.

 

[Sapiens]

You are repeating unsopprted assertion to anything you don't like to hear. It is merely authoritarian posturing. The same idea I had about choosing providing predators surprise in attack and prey being unpredictable in escape was also published in an article indipendent of me.

Wow ... calm down, take three deep breaths and try to remember how to type ... your emotional state is turning everything you are trying to say into mush. Well ... it's pretty mushy to being with, but your diminished typing skills are making things unclear. Well ... it's pretty unclear to begin with. I guess you'd best just give up.

 

[savagewind]

Enlightened means minds are linked. How do you think magic works? Isn't it one mind dominant over another. How does the dominant mind get into the submissive one? It doesn't get in. It shares (I should read more) the sea.

So someone said it is evident I don't read. But readng other people's rules gets in the way of that conscious awareness. If I read someone else's enlightened experience and then had my own, how would I know mine is real?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

There seems to be a lot of that in this thread.

My argumentation is not going to change. Freedom and choosing is fundamental to the universe, and that's the way science is going, if it's going anywhere. Nobody in the future will believe there ever was a time when scientists ignored the obvious and plain fact that freedom is real and relevant. If they read this in the future they will be astonished by the level of denial of laymen and professional scientist alike. Every time the issue of choosing came up evolutionists pulled an array of meaningless debating tricks like saying it is an unsupported assertion. And then the entire issue of how things are chosen in the universe was gone again.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Wow ... calm down, take three deep breaths and try to remember how to type ... your emotional state is turning everything you are trying to say into mush. Well ... it's pretty mushy to being with, but your diminished typing skills are making things unclear. Well ... it's pretty unclear to begin with. I guess you'd best just give up.

Childish...

 

[savagewind]

Childish...

Isn't he cute?

 

[Sapiens]

My argumentation is not going to change.

Then I suggest that everyone's response that you are failing to frame a coherence argument is not going to change.

Freedom and choosing is fundamental to the universe, and that's the way science is going, if it's going anywhere. Nobody in the future will believe there ever was a time when scientists ignored the obvious and plain fact that freedom is real and relevant.

I don't think you have a clue of what the words "freedom" or "choosing" mean.

If they read this in the future they will be astonished by the level of denial of laymen and professional scientist alike.

I suspect that they will either be bored stiff by your posts or maybe, if you're lucky, they'll get a good laugh at you.

Every time the issue of choosing came up evolutionists pulled an array of meaningless debating tricks like saying it is an unsupported assertion.

It is not meaningless, it is not a debating trick, it is the essence of the discussion. You are making claims with support and that is not a debate, that is a monologue.

And then the entire issue of how things are chosen in the universe was gone again.

Gone again? Bye bye.

 

[YmirGF]

You are repeating unsopprted assertion to anything you don't like to hear. It is merely authoritarian posturing. The same idea I had about choosing providing predators surprise in attack and prey being unpredictable in escape was also published in an article indipendent of me.

I'll bet that was a real page turner.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Isn't he cute?

He is just pulling tricks a child pulls, but then being an adult....

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Then I suggest that everyone's response that you are failing to frame a coherence argument is not going to change.

I don't think you have a clue of what the words "freedom" or "choosing" mean.

I suspect that they will either be bored stiff by your posts or maybe, if you're lucky, they'll get a good laugh at you.

It is not meaningless, it is not a debating trick, it is the essence of the discussion. You are making claims with support and that is not a debate, that is a monologue.

Gone again? Bye bye.

The alternative understanding to choosing that is offered by darwinists such as Dennett has the logic of sorting, it has the logic of being forced.

 

[YmirGF]

I pronounce this thread to be officially dead.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I'll bet that was a real page turner.

More of your debating tactic to be annoying. All tricks, no content, all denial that freedom is real and relevant.

 

[savagewind]

I pronounce this thread to be officially dead.

I vote this post down. Now to find the button.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I pronounce this thread to be officially dead.

Not so fast.

Say a decision can turn out X or Y, and X is chosen. Then the question, What made the decision turn out X instead of Y? , is answered by a new decision between P and Q related to the original decision. If P is chosen, then the resulting opiniin is that P made the decision turn out X instead of Y.

That is the basic logic of how subjectivity works, how statements about what is good, loving and beautiful are arrived at.

As is shown in this logic the conclusion the painting is beautiful, is equally logically valid to the conclusion the painting is ugly. The logical validity of opinions thus only depend on 1 that the conclusion is chosen 2 that the conclusion is about what makes a decision turn out the way it does.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I pronounce this thread to be officially dead.

Yes, another lost sock in the laundromat of oblivion.

 

[Midnight Rain]

Being in the sea is a metaphor for Enlightenment.

I would not agree with that analogy. Simple as that.

 

[Midnight Rain]

I don't think it is possible to become unenlightened. Although I think it might be possible to lie to one's own self about it. Some people might even be persuaded by someone or something else that they are not enlightened. Matthew 24:24

Bible verses mean nothing to me. And I think that if one were to qualify for Enlightenment one would not be deceived away from it. Though this is my conjecture. Mainly because if a person is to be persuaded away then it wasn't true enlightenment.